You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I was vaguely aware of this earlier in the year. According to the BBC British Special Forces were vetoing the relocation of Afghan commandos (who fought alongside them) to the UK after withdraw, leaving them to the Taliban. Apparently this was to prevent them from potentially giving evidence in war crimes trials against the SAS.
The government denies this, but yesterday it turned out that they lied. So it sounds like the British government and the SAS colluded in this to avoid the embarrassment of a British war crimes trial. What an utter betrayal.
It doesn't seem to have received as much attention as it should with everything else that's been going on but it makes me really angry. I'd like to see the politicians vying for Number 10 making some sort of pledge to try and rectify this (if any of the Afghan commandos are still accessible).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn00d2ndnlgo
It is properly poor...and provides more evidence to everyone else not to get into bed with us for any fights as we appear happy to abandon everyone afterwards.
Suspect that there will be two sides, as there is in every story and there will not be a clear ending, So far that looks likely.
This sad affair is still rumbling on. I can't help thinking that we should all (politicians included) be outraged at this and attempting to redress things but, typically, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest or concern.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9l9elr95zo
I read that and the BBC havent published any evidence to support their claim beyond an assumption that because none had got permission then the MoD must be blocking it. Im not sure why we would want mercenaries coming to live here anyway
In todays' political climate, I can't help but think an extra 2,000 highly trained, skilled and motivated soldiers joining the MOD would be jolly good thing indeed for UK as a whole.
Im not sure why we would want mercenaries coming to live here anyway
A disgusting attitude that will surely come back to bite us next time we expect jonny foreigner to give us any support.
I read that and the BBC havent published any evidence to support their claim beyond an assumption that because none had got permission then the MoD must be blocking it. Im not sure why we would want mercenaries coming to live here anyway
I'm sure you read it from a highly-reputable source. I'd take 2000 of them over one of you any day. 🙂
I read that and the BBC havent published any evidence to support their claim beyond an assumption that because none had got permission then the MoD must be blocking it. Im not sure why we would want mercenaries coming to live here anyway
even if you didn’t think that morally the right thing to do was to offer refuge to Afghan soldiers who fought alongside British soldiers and were now likely to be targeted for supporting our military cause when we walked away (which clearly we should) then it would have politically wise to say either - we are confident there is nothing to hide here so they are welcome or say IF there is a story here we believe strongly in justice so they can come and tell their story.
I read that and the BBC havent published any evidence to support their claim beyond an assumption that because none had got permission then the MoD must be blocking it.
Am I reading the same article? BBC haven't published any evidence, but MOD has confirmed it and the former defence minister had to correct a previous statement denying there was a veto?
And your dismissal of soldiers we have a moral obligation to as 'mercenaries' is disgraceful.
Let's hope this is not true.
Because if it is, it implies that our troops were behaving like the SS, and look how that turned out for them.
I hope not because no cover up survives the test of time and ultimately all will be exposed as many an 80* year old exSS has discovered.
Anyone believe it was just Australian special forces going rogue.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68358760
It's going to be a troublesome episode of SAS rogue heroes to do the soundtrack:
Killing an Arab by the Cure (ethnically incorrect but dramatic licence)
Shot through the heart, Bon Jovi
Tell me lies, by FM
The last verse of Streets of Sorrow?
If this report is to be believe it's no wonder they didn't want witnesses over here.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3j5gxgz0do
I read that report earlier, horrific stuff. Direct from the mouths of other SAS Solders who were there and saw it happen.
And how many former Afghan special forces soldiers died because the SAS and SBS vetoed their applications to come to the UK, because they were witnesses, leaving them at the mercy of the Taliban?
It seems to just get worse! There's a Panorama about it but I don't think I'll be able to watch, it'll make me so angry & ashamed.
Why isn't there outrage about this? Well done to the BBC for bringing it to light.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3q5xl9wqwo
He’s got the look of a supercilious **** about him.
The SAS was once seen as a bit of a dodgy outfit that did some rather questionable and probably illegal but vitally necessary stuff. The perceived wisdom was not to ask too many questions or put them under the limelight.
That all changed during the Iranian Embassy Siege when live footage of the SAS in action was broadcast to millions across the country. Instantly they were hailed as heroes and put under an intense spotlight, consequently they lost their shadowy dodgy persona overnight. Although their modus operandi almost certainly didn't change in any meaningful way.
…consequently they lost their shadowy dodgy persona overnight
Some people must have then missed Gibraltar & Loughall to name but two. HMG has long been prepared to ignore any allegations and spin like mad
🤷♂️
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/15/royal-marines-chief-named-head-of-navy-gen-gwyn-jenkins/
Nothing to see here!!
He’s got the look of a supercilious **** about him.
Few photograph that well.
Should see my passport photo, even I wouldnt let me into the country looking as it does 😆
Loughall sounds like a FAFO moment for the IRA based on the Wikipedia article.
Strangely FAFO isn’t one of the tenets underpinning the rule of law.
Also the two members of the public shot by the SAS that night how were they FAing?
Also the two members of the public shot by the SAS that night how were they FAing?
They were very unfortunate and have my most sincere condolences.
IIRC, the IRA weren't well known for following the rules of law. They had set out to murder several police officers and were heavily armed, are you suggesting that an attempt should have been made to arrest them?
In December 2011, Northern Ireland's Historical Enquiries Team found that not only did the IRA team fire first but that they could not have been safely arrested. They concluded that the British Army was justified in opening fire.
It doesn’t matter what the opposition do, we are supposed to be bound by the rule of law.
The IRA unit involved were under surveillance for weeks before whilst planning (that fact being disclosed years after the Historical Enquiries Team report), they were allowed to undertake the operation. If an early interdiction had been put in place one innocent member of the public would still be alive
I have stayed off this thread because I am sickened by the recent allegations As a veteran particularly, I find it hard to read. I hope if they are proven, prosecutions follow. It sounds like a staggering breakdown of chain of command oversight. However, I could not ignore this.
we are supposed to be bound by the rule of law.
"We" are
The IRA unit involved were under surveillance for weeks before whilst planning (that fact being disclosed years after the Historical Enquiries Team report), they were allowed to undertake the operation. If an early interdiction had been put in place one innocent member of the public would still be alive.
If someone is under surveillance because they are "suspected" of planning a terrorist act, they can't be arrested, precisely because "we are bound by the rule of law". Hard evidence is required. Lots of suspected terrorists were/are surveilled because the authorities don't know exactly what they are/were up to, even though they suspected ill intent. Yes if they were all locked up, a lot of terrorist atrocities would have been prevented, but it's rightly not legal or ethical.
The IRA team at loughgall set out with guns and bombs to murder all the police officers in that station. They had attacked other rural police stations and murdered other officers. They were armed, believed themselves to be in an army and were carrying out an attack. It should have come as no surprise to them that they were met with a robust response. The member of the public who was tragically killed in the crossfire would still be alive if the IRA had not set out with Kalashnikovs and Semtex on that day.
Duplicate post deleted.
If someone is under surveillance because they are "suspected" of planning a terrorist act, they can't be arrested, precisely because "we are bound by the rule of law". Hard evidence is required
That is completely wrong, the threshold for arrest is reasonable grounds to suspect, therefore you do not require hard evidence (PACE Code G).
Disruptive activity short of a criminal justice outcome is a normal tactic to prevent or mitigate TTLs post-Osman (that ruling was in 1998) ; the State has to to take adequate and appropriate steps to protect lives.
The member of the public who was tragically killed in the crossfire would / could also still be alive if the State had met its obligations under law, hence the family of one of them still campaigning for a full inquest to ascertain why alternative tactics were not used.
That is completely wrong, the threshold for arrest is reasonable grounds to suspect, therefore you do not require hard evidence (PACE Code G).
And if every time the police in NI in the 1980s had "reasonable grounds to suspect", they arrested those they suspected? Hundreds would have been arrested weekly, then shortly released due to lack of evidence causing huge strain on courts and prisons. This happened with interment early in the troubles and was a disaster. Disclaimer, I spent a lot of time in NI in uniform in the 1980s and 90s. Most of of it in Bomb Disposal units. I would sometimes have the local IRA commander, "intelligence officer" or "engineering officer" suspected of making the bomb I was dealing with, pointed out to me by RUC/PSNI. Watching me and my render safe procedures from the cordon. So he could better identify opportunities to prevent my success and/or cause my death on subsequent call outs. Strongly suspected, but insufficient evidence to lift them. This happened every day of the week. all over NI. The idea that ALL of these (thousands in total) attacks could be prevented by arresting those suspected of planning them before hand is naive. Some, yes - where very specific evidence existed, but most - no.
That’s pretty much how a lot of law enforcement works, people get arrested on suspicion. My disclaimer is I spent many years running covert crime operations with a number of live TTLs occurring and requiring management in accordance with ECHR- not once did we decide to let them try and whack somebody and we’ll pitch in then.
Internment was completely different to using lawful powers to detect crime and prevent injury or loss of life.
I would have thought that solid intelligence backed up by surveillance, sufficient to deploy a team for an ambush would put an op at the top of the list for disruption.
The idea that ALL of these (thousands in total) attacks could be prevented by arresting those suspected of planning them before hand is naive.
If you could point out where I said that, that would be great. It’s widely excepted that shoot to kill policies were in operation in Ireland. Does that, coupled with continuing covering up / acceptance by HMG lead to a feeling of impunity that carried on in other theatres; could be. The australians seem to think there was a deep cultural problem in their regiments
I would have thought that solid intelligence backed up by surveillance, sufficient to deploy a team for an ambush would put an op at the top of the list for disruption.
I was not privy to the intelligence in question. I don't know if RUC SB and or the military knew exactly who was to be involved, their exact MO and escape routes the timings etc. Maybe they could have rounded up the usual suspects beforehand only to let them go a few days later?
I suppose it might have delayed the attack by a few days or weeks. But seeing as that particular East Tyrone PIRA unit was responsible for upwards of 40 or 50 murders in the couple of years prior, despite being repeatedly arrested, I very much doubt it would have stopped them attacking Loughgall eventually.
In the case of a partial intelligence picture pointing towards some kind of attack but blind on some key details, considering the rep of that particular "ASU", I think an ambush was justified. YMMV.
The rest of your post covers too many points for me to debate at length atm and is likely to wander into areas I'm not comfortable going into by this means. I'm also conscious of potentially derailing a thread about Afghanistan and I'm in the middle of packing the car for a weekend away mtbing. So I'll bow out of this now, have a nice weekend 🙂
You too, you’ve picked a good weekend for it judging by the weather today!
Still ongoing and seemingly more appalling the more we find out.
I still can't understand why there isn't massive public outrage at this; that's pretty depressing in itself.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev40r9yve4o